SUNDAY PICTURES.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 19 February 1917, Page 4

SUNDAY PICTURES.

# To the Editor, j Sir, —It seems a pity that “Worker”’ I (who undoubtedly has the support of j the majority) should have turned frcnT the main point to attend to poor '’insignificant “Churchman,” who happens to get bogged and whose views are not likely uv trawl beyond his front gate. front inquiry, I have found the majority in favour of Sunday pictures. There appears to bo |no reason why permission was retusI ed to the picture proprietors, beyoncr ‘ the f act that a member of the Council successfully moved to that effect at an almost empty meeting. Now, sir, are we to sit tight and allow the Council cr a few members thereof to say (we shall or we shall not have pictures ot a Sunday) at their pleasure? I say, that if it was good to have pictures before, it is good now. Did we put those gentlemen whore they are to run the business of the Borough, or did we put them there to act the goat? Let the Council put tne question to the public vote, or tailing that, those in favour of SuudayVPicttires call a public meeting, finer out their strength, and decide what action to take. If the Wowser element is in the majority, the sooner we know it the better. —I am, etc., • loafer.

,s i r ith your permission I should like to enter into the picture fray. For whatever it is worth, the Borough Council have my whole-hearted support in their action in regard to prohibiting Sunday pictures.

Most of your correspondents on this matter persistently beg the question, and so let us concede at once that pictures. per se, are a wonderful*invention, of man with infinite possibilities of doing good. They are here to stay, and to abolish them, if it were possible, would be an act of foolishness past description. Having said that, there naturally remains, to be considered, the fly in the ointment, or let us say, the trail of the subtle beast—the ser pent.

In all the creations of man there is this subtle interposition of Evil. Alan himself not being a perfect being. As the object of life is to perfect man. and' drive out the evil, all sorts of precautions and limitations must be placed upon his movements, and thus it comes about that parents,* teachers, clergy, borough authorities, affii the actions of their families. To home to actionsof their families. To come to Sunday pictures, they come under the jurisdiction of the City Fathers s *JSvho at least nominally, legislate for a Christian community, who, again nominally, try to follow Christ, and learn of Him. They have considered it wrong to put before the family they represent —a subtle temptation to neglect God. It is nothing to the point that these people who prefer pictures to Church or home. The child often prefers green apples to medicine, but they are not treated accordingly, and so our civic authorities have acted in the best interests and for our good, though apparently some people prefer the appleI presume some who go to the pictures believe in God —do they realise what their choice on Sunday night means? It means that being offered the pure breath of the Word of Life: they choose rather the trail of the serpent. If they don’t believe in God, then there is, of course, no use in stressing this point, except to say that if we, who. believe in Him are wrong, then our Sunday’s work is not a loss even then, but if they who do not believe in Him are wrong, then they arc in a woeful case. For the very conscience’ sake they had better believe and fear to d° evil, for they may be wrong. The whole question. of pictures, however, needs regulating. The suggestive advertisements, the press monopoly everywhere, to my mind, things that need eliminating if the press is to be a safe guide to public morals. The star picture also needs keener scrutiny by the censor. Tice, debauchery, immorality are all placed before all and sundry, and even young children are ruining their health and school work because of their very selfish or thoughtless parents, who do not know the meaning of “Home, Sweet Home,’’ and have contracted the picture habit. Let us sum up the whole matter thus, Good clean pictures instructive or humourous in nature, moral in detail —eliminating that which panders to the lowest animal instincts .—and rendered once or twice a "week, would be good for us all. But pictures instead of religion—pictures of a lew American origin—pictures at night for children —picture advertisements of lurid details —are not good for anyone except those who financiallly profit from them; and the Borough Council who in any way strive to work on these linos deserves the commendation of all wise people, and I. should bo very sorry to think that the type of man or woman, who lured by the suggestive advertisements, will ruin home-life, children’s health and God’s Day for the sake ot personal tastes of a low order, re preset the majority in our midst; and wcu if they do their type is one that plainly needs regulating —not following.—l am, W. F STENT.